On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:23:29 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 10:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:13:34 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:52 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?


Can you not comprehend that I said, sure, that's just like all the times
Green comes in here and tells us he's a Republican. But since he's
demonstrated for years that he's not, no one believe him either. In his
case, he's yet to name a single Republican that he likes, he regularly
rants against all of them, even Reagan was no good.




Conservatives believe
that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to
have a cigar dinner in
a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom
to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional
power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that
the country Madison and the founders saw?


Conservatives believe in common sense, and common sense says that if
smoking in all it's forms makes people sick that it's a GOOD idea to
limit exposure to it for people who don't smoke, or don't want to be
exposed to hazardous waste.

Then why are you against allowing me to have a private cigar dinner at
a restaurant in a private room?

Smoking leaves residue and that third hand residue can make people sick.

So far you've given us zero proof of that. Just because you can cite a
study where they found that after someone has been smoking in a car for
hours, the worst possible environment, that byproducts can be found
doesn't prove that anyone has been made sick, nor did the researchers
say that. And that is a very long way from someone catching a whiff
of a cigarette from 25 ft away.

Please read this entire article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

I'll even post the summary for you.

"Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of
nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential third hand smoke hazards..

This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Substan-
tial levels of TSNAs were measured on surfaces inside a smokers
vehicle. Laboratory experiments using cellulose as a model indoor
material yielded a10-fold increase of surface-bound TSNAs when
sorbed secondhand smoke was exposed to 60 ppbv HONO for 3 hours. In both
cases we identified
1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal, a TSNA absent in
freshly emitted tobacco smoke, as the major product. The potent
carcinogens 4-(methy-lnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone and
N-nitroso nornicotine were also detected. Time-course measurements
revealed fast TSNA formation, with up to 0.4% conversion of nicotine.
Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces€”including clothing and human skin€”this recently
identified process represents an unappreciated health hazard through
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed €œthirdhand smoke.€� Our work highlights the
importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly those
involving amines and NO x/HONO cycling, with potential health impacts."




The bottom line:

With potential health impacts. Almost everything has a potential health
impact, including many of the things we have in our homes. This study
proves nothing, no surprise. I could do a study on the effects of smoke
generated off a range, conclude that it too has "possible health impacts..
BFD. And this has what to do with catching a whiff of smoke again?
It doesn't.






http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

It's like trying to defend spraying a room with toxic waste in the name
of freedom and then accusing anyone who objects to it of being
controlling and manipulative.

BS. And no one is forcing you to be in the room with me.

"Toxic waste is any material in liquid, solid, or gas form that can
cause serious harm to humans as well as other animals and the
environment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste

Smoking leaves behind toxic waste.


Liberals leave behind toxic waste. How about these awful, horrific
cancer producing products:


https://smartklean.wordpress.com/201...-average-home/

On the list is Ajax, hot dogs and shampoo. OMG, we're all gonna die!


You wouldn't want to be the next group of people in the room that had
been saturated with toxic waste, and I don't want to be the next person
in the room where people may have been smoking.


Fine. Then have the restaurant free to make that decision. They can
have rooms where smoking is never allowed and rooms where it is allowed..
Disclose it and allow the people to decide. That's the conservative
position. The lib position is to rant on, to force YOUR way onto
everyone, because you know what's good for us.

It doesn't solve the issue of secondhand or thirdhand smoke. Even if a
room is set aside for smoking, people still open the doors, come and go
from those smoking rooms and enter the non-smoking area and expose
non-smokers to those contaminants where not only adults may be exposed,
but also children exposed to those toxic wastes.


And again with the extreme nonsense, no compromise lunacy of the libs.


This issue is not about politics - it's a health issue.


It's absolutely an issue of politics, which you'd of course realize
if you were a conservative.




BTW, people who smoke in one room have no control over where the smoke
goes or where the residue ends up, in addition to, the walking stench of
people going to and fro throughout the restaurant from the "smoking" room.


Not true. You could have separate air systems for the smoking allowed
room. Or whole separate bar/restaurants where smoking is allowed.
Leave the customers free to decide, not libs shoving it down the
people's throats because you think they are too stupid to decide for
themselves.

Businesses are free to do that now,

Again you demonstrate your ignorance. Businesses in most states
are no longer free to do that. The libs saw to that. If you were a
conservative, you'd know that.



but very few of them choose to go
all smoking because too many people don't smoke, now, and that bites
into their bottom line profits. It's not fiscally smart to eliminate a
large percentage of customers in order to accommodate smoking.


No, they don't because in most states, the CAN NOT. Libs like you
saw to that. There is no compromise.




How about a bar that wants to allow
smoking, all the patrons that go there, the staff, are all OK with it,
how is it consistent with conservatism for you to use big govt to deny
them that right?


I imagine there are a few dives that still allow smoking, but their days
are numbered.


Yes, in a few states. The problem is that people like you forced it to
be that way and want to continue to force it, until you control us totally.

You better believe it I'm on the side of forcing smokers to NOT smoke in
any public venue.


Well, there you go, typical, talking out of both sides of your mouth.
First you claim that bars and restaurants are free to choose, which
they are not, and then you admit you want to crush that too. THAT
is exactly what libs do. There is no compromise. It's why no one
that's conservative wants to hear about a new gun law, because we
know it's only one step on the lib process that never ends.




That is one big reason why we can't pass any new gun legislation, because
people don't trust libs. They know it's a never ending process to suck
freedom from us all.

Gun legislation has no relevance to the health issues of smoking. It's
also a separate thread.


It has a lot of relevance, as cited above.




And conservatives don't believe in "common sense", they
believe in smaller govt and allowing people the freedom to live their
own lives, eg smokers have rights too.


I'm all for smaller government and freedom. What I am AGAINST is anyone
poisoning the air I breathe, and smoking does that.



It clearly doesn't do it in bars, restaurants that leave people free
to choose. If you want to select a bar that bans smoking, you can
go there.

I don't go to bars, and never have. Bars that are in restaurants I've
been to are all non-smoking environments.


Gee, I wonder why?



If others want to select one that allows it, they can go
there. But from your statements, it's clear that, the conservative,
logical position, isn't good enough for you. It's typical of libs.


Smoking is not a political issue. It's a health issue, and as a
conservative I'll continue to vote for people who are in agreement with
my stance.

--
Maggie

If you were a conservative you'd know damn well that it's also a political
issue.

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:51:26 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
After serious thinking trader_4 wrote :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:40:02 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:


See, this is why you're the village idiot. V = IR. Just because I is
zero, that doesn't make R zero. You really should have taken basic
algebra.

Of course not, current and resistance are *inversely proportional* when
voltage is held invariant. The extremes would be zero and infinity.


Irrelevant. Put zero in for I, you get V = 0. Again, please take a course
in algebra.

Ohm's law is a formula. As such I should be able to 'plug in' two
values for two of the variables and obtain the third by using one of
the other two equations.

You are now giving me V=0 and I=0 so now I should be able to determine
what the resistance is. The formula (using algebra) can be manipulated
to R=V/I for this purpose and then that equation solved for R. If I is
zero, it doesn't work.


You can't use the formula when it requires dividing by zero. There is
no need to divide by zero to solve for V when I is zero. Capiche?
You just insist on trying to force division by zero, when it's not
required. Go back to the apples example.



Ohm's Law works for 'voltage drop' because 'voltage drop' *requires*
that there be (non-zero) current through a (non-zero) resistance. This
is the original point which started this discussion.

Ohm's law requires no such thing. Ohn's law is a straight line and it
goes right through the origin. Did you plot it yet? I mean this is
incredibly dumb. Simple electricity 101 test question:

You have a 100 ohm resistor. Per Ohm's law, what is the voltage with:

A - 1 amp flowing
B - 20 amps flowing
C - 0 amps flowing

Everyone else that has weighed in on this knows the correct answers are
100 volts, 2000 volts, 0 volts. You're the only dummy who says we
don't know what the voltage is in case C.



Again, you are trying to force division by zero, when no division by
zero is needed. V = IR, it's all multiplication.

Except by the *formula* for Ohm's law it can be stated that I and R are
inversely proportional for any given V. So, as 'I' goes toward zero 'R'
goes toward infinity. If 'I' *is* zero then 'R' *is* infinity and you
are attempting to multiply zero by infinity to get a non-non-zero 'V'.


Try taking algebra and electricity 101 and get back to us

This is like saying I have groups of apples in threes. If I select
X groups, how many apples do I then have in total.

T = N x 3 5 groups I have 15 apples total

You just pulled an 'N' and a 'T' out of your hat, and what happened to
'X'? Oh, I see, it shrunk and became a little 'x'. Are you trying to
come up with 3.141592 . . .?

Maybe you need an apple puree formula?


That's why you're the village idiot. Everyone else saw what I meant.


How many apples do I have with N=0? Equation gives 0, a valid number.

Of course, but you might have zero groups of 528 apples or zero groups
of 498745 apples or zero groups any number of apples to get the same
total number of apples. An equation makes no claims of the
relationships between the values.

Your answer, "You can't do that because you could transform that
equation into:

T/N = 3.

And OMG we're dividing by Zero!

I thought 'N' was five.

Maybe you need a nap?


You need to take HS algebra.


The number of apples per group and the number of groups of apples and
the number of total apples in your example are not claiming to be a
formula, so the relationships between them is not important.


T = N x 3 most certainly is a formula. It gives the total number
of apples. Again, you're really lost here.


If on the other hand you claim that the number of apples per group is
inversely proportional to the number of groups of apples for any given
number of total apples then yes, because it is a formula when the
relationships are considered.

Why are you allowing me to troll you like this, are you some kind of
mathochist?

Good to see you admit you're a troll.

You're very rude to people here, so I thought you would like some
competition. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


I'm only rude to assholes like you that can't do basic algebra
and then lecture the rest of us, who can.

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:05:14 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:55:49 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/3/2016 12:38 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:09:08 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.


As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.


Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals


I can sy for sure a "whiff" can be more than enough to send me for my
inhaler.

Yesterday I found this little tidbit of info:

"1:
When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.
2:
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)"

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867

1. That information explains why I'd get so ill riding in a car when my
parents were smoking. I wouldn't just feel bad or cough - I would get
so sick to my stomach that I couldn't function for an entire day or more
depending on how long I was exposed.
2. I was exposed to second hand and third hand smoke my entire childhood
'til the day I moved out. For years I was hypoglycemic having episodes
of nearly passing out, and I'm now a type 2 diabetic.

--
Maggie

ROFL. If you think something that they did in a lab test tube explains
why you got sick in a car from insulin resistance, you really are the
village idiot.

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 5:02:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:01:56 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/4/2016 10:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:51:38 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:46 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:15:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck,
year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that until
they go away?

geesh ... Liberals just have a different viewpoint.

Liberal smokers STINK just like conservative smokers STINK just like
moderate smokers STINK ....


So, just stay away from us.

Us? So, you smoke?

Only an occasional cigar. I just stand up for the rights of everyone,
including cigarette smokers.

Smoking is not a right.


[...]


Don't you know when you pass by people that that stench turns
peoples stomachs?


Don't you know that if I'm in a private room at a restaurant, where
everyone there agrees it's OK, it doesn't matter, that no one's
stomach is turning?

Your cigar smoke produces secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke deposits
on everything in that room. Anyone who enters that room after your
group smoking can get sick from the residue left behind.

It's no different than someone spraying the room with toxic waste.

You claim to be an engineer and a smart man, but smart people don't
always care about how their actions affect other people.


The problem is that it's the libs who claim to care about everyone,

1. I'm not a lib, and 2. I don't care about everyone.

I don't know anyone who cares about everyone.

so they force their rules down everyone else's throats. Cigarette bans,
soda size limits, soda taxes, salt shaker bans, etc. If they really
cared, they'd leave us free to choose.

If smokers really cared, they'd quit smoking.


Are you offended by what I've said - that you stink and make people sick
to their stomachs as you pass by if you're a smoker? It's just the
truth. Think about it. Do you want to have that sort of affect on people?

You have that effect on me with every post, should we ban you from posting?

Who is forcing you to respond?

But don't use the heavy hand of govt to
screw us, deny us the right to a cigar dinner at a restaurant in a private
room, and then pretend you're a conservative.


Smoking a cigar at at restaurant while having dinner isn't a right.


So what? Just because you don't think it's right doesn't give you the
right to force your view on me.

I have a right to pursue LIFE granted to me under the Constitution, in
addition to the right of free speech, and in pursuing my Constitutional
rights I will protest smoking.

You're welcome to kill yourself with cigarette's, cigar's, or whatever
you choose to use.


And if you were a conservative, like you claim to be, you'd understand that.

Well, I understand how smoking has affected my health - it's not a
political issue and never has been political. Being a conservative
doesn't remove common sense to reason that if something makes people
sick that it's a good idea to restrict or eliminate the source.
Can someone lock Trader in a closed room with a case of cubans and
10 packs of Sweet caps and force him to smoke them all within 3
hours?? Then mabee we'd get some peace from the idiot.

I'll buy the shovel to bury him with.

Somebody let you out of your cage again? I guess soon you'll be explaining
the US NEC to us again and making an ass of yourself as usual.

Per Frank:
If someone smokes, that's their business and I don't believe that many
people are made ill by second hand smoke as toxicity is always dose related.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I got my kicks by setting fire
to little styrofoam cups in closed rooms.

OK, maybe the styro smoke is too demonstrably toxic...

But substitute something else that *really* stinks when burned and you
get the idea....

I think that particular form of self-gratification would have an
extremely short life span.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 17:29:18 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/4/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:23:26 -0500, Muggles

It doesn't solve the issue of secondhand or thirdhand smoke. Even if a
room is set aside for smoking, people still open the doors, come and go
from those smoking rooms and enter the non-smoking area and expose
non-smokers to those contaminants where not only adults may be exposed,
but also children exposed to those toxic wastes.

This issue is not about politics - it's a health issue.

A good case in point is cruise ships. European cruise ships allow
smoking BUT NOT IN THE STATEROOMS ans NOT ON BALCONIES for safety
reasons

American cruise ships allow smoking only in "designated areas" such as
the casino and the "cigar bar" - but those areas are not sealed from
the rest of the ship and are inade[And if you ask the tour guide people before hand, they will tell you "oh, it's not bad" in there.]quately ventilated. On our last
cruise there was over half of one deck - and a good section of another
deck that i could NOT safely enter. Iincluding one of the highee end
restaurants I wanted to eat in)


BTW, people who smoke in one room have no control over where the smoke
goes or where the residue ends up, in addition to, the walking stench of
people going to and fro throughout the restaurant from the "smoking" room.



Center posted, as your reply is.
Considerable text trimmed as a courtesy.

Coutesy? You don't know courtesy. You don't know center posting
either. Or current usenet ettiquette. I post my replies IN-LINE

You on the other hand just bitch and whine, posting "Center posted, as
your reply is." with no input at all.

(By the way, your being a moron has nothing to do with being a mormon)
-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:32:33 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Frank:
If someone smokes, that's their business and I don't believe that many
people are made ill by second hand smoke as toxicity is always dose related.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I got my kicks by setting fire
to little styrofoam cups in closed rooms.

OK, maybe the styro smoke is too demonstrably toxic...

But substitute something else that *really* stinks when burned and you
get the idea....

I think that particular form of self-gratification would have an
extremely short life span.
How about those stink bombs the "bad kids" set off in the classroom
about grade 5??? The ones made od sulphur match heads in a pen case?

trader_4 expressed precisely :
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 5:02:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:01:56 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/4/2016 10:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:51:38 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:46 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:15:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack
per year. year one a buck, year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from
smoking......

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that
until they go away?

geesh ... Liberals just have a different viewpoint.

Liberal smokers STINK just like conservative smokers STINK just like
moderate smokers STINK ....


So, just stay away from us.

Us? So, you smoke?

Only an occasional cigar. I just stand up for the rights of everyone,
including cigarette smokers.

Smoking is not a right.


[...]


Don't you know when you pass by people that that stench turns
peoples stomachs?


Don't you know that if I'm in a private room at a restaurant, where
everyone there agrees it's OK, it doesn't matter, that no one's
stomach is turning?

Your cigar smoke produces secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke deposits
on everything in that room. Anyone who enters that room after your
group smoking can get sick from the residue left behind.

It's no different than someone spraying the room with toxic waste.

You claim to be an engineer and a smart man, but smart people don't
always care about how their actions affect other people.


The problem is that it's the libs who claim to care about everyone,

1. I'm not a lib, and 2. I don't care about everyone.

I don't know anyone who cares about everyone.

so they force their rules down everyone else's throats. Cigarette bans,
soda size limits, soda taxes, salt shaker bans, etc. If they really
cared, they'd leave us free to choose.

If smokers really cared, they'd quit smoking.


Are you offended by what I've said - that you stink and make people sick
to their stomachs as you pass by if you're a smoker? It's just the
truth. Think about it. Do you want to have that sort of affect on
people?
You have that effect on me with every post, should we ban you from
posting?

Who is forcing you to respond?

But don't use the heavy hand of govt to
screw us, deny us the right to a cigar dinner at a restaurant in a
private room, and then pretend you're a conservative.


Smoking a cigar at at restaurant while having dinner isn't a right.


So what? Just because you don't think it's right doesn't give you the
right to force your view on me.

I have a right to pursue LIFE granted to me under the Constitution, in
addition to the right of free speech, and in pursuing my Constitutional
rights I will protest smoking.

You're welcome to kill yourself with cigarette's, cigar's, or whatever
you choose to use.


And if you were a conservative, like you claim to be, you'd understand
that.

Well, I understand how smoking has affected my health - it's not a
political issue and never has been political. Being a conservative
doesn't remove common sense to reason that if something makes people
sick that it's a good idea to restrict or eliminate the source.
Can someone lock Trader in a closed room with a case of cubans and
10 packs of Sweet caps and force him to smoke them all within 3
hours?? Then mabee we'd get some peace from the idiot.

I'll buy the shovel to bury him with.

Somebody let you out of your cage again? I guess soon you'll be explaining
the US NEC to us again and making an ass of yourself as usual.

Looks like everybody else here 'has your number' so to speak. LOL

On 7/4/2016 2:50 PM, ChairMan wrote:
Ralph wrote:
On 7/3/2016 3:31 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I'm the radical? Good grief. I support the right of a
group of
people to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are the
one that
wants to control people, FORCE your ways on everyone.
THAT is what
libs do.


So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100
other
people's right to clean air? You're going to FORCE
everyone else to
breath your stinky cigar smoke?

double whoosh


Some restaurant offered cigar dinners on a regular basis. Some states
made them illegal.

It is up to the restaurant to clean after. Going in the next day you'd
never know there was smoking if it was properly ventilated and cleaned.
Why should you care if it is not bothering you? No one is forcing
anyone to do anything.

On 7/4/2016 8:32 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I got my kicks by setting fire
to little styrofoam cups in closed rooms.

OK, maybe the styro smoke is too demonstrably toxic...

But substitute something else that *really* stinks when burned and you
get the idea....

I think that particular form of self-gratification would have an
extremely short life span.


If it lasts more than five hours, consult
a doctor.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/4/2016 8:45 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 17:29:18 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/4/2016 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:23:26 -0500, Muggles

It doesn't solve the issue of secondhand or thirdhand smoke. Even if a
room is set aside for smoking, people still open the doors, come and go
from those smoking rooms and enter the non-smoking area and expose
non-smokers to those contaminants where not only adults may be exposed,
but also children exposed to those toxic wastes.

This issue is not about politics - it's a health issue.

A good case in point is cruise ships. European cruise ships allow
smoking BUT NOT IN THE STATEROOMS ans NOT ON BALCONIES for safety
reasons

American cruise ships allow smoking only in "designated areas" such as
the casino and the "cigar bar" - but those areas are not sealed from
the rest of the ship and are inade[And if you ask the tour guide people before hand, they will tell you "oh, it's not bad" in there.]quately ventilated. On our last
cruise there was over half of one deck - and a good section of another
deck that i could NOT safely enter. Iincluding one of the highee end
restaurants I wanted to eat in)


BTW, people who smoke in one room have no control over where the smoke
goes or where the residue ends up, in addition to, the walking stench of
people going to and fro throughout the restaurant from the "smoking" room.



Center posted, as your reply is.
Considerable text trimmed as a courtesy.

Coutesy? You don't know courtesy. You don't know center posting
either. Or current usenet ettiq[There you go, center posting again.]uette. I post my replies IN-LINE

You on the other hand just bitch and whine, posting "Center posted, as
your reply is." with no input at all.

(By the way, your being a moron has nothing to do with being a mormon)
-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.


Center posted, as yours was.
--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

trader_4 explained on 7/4/2016 :
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:51:26 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
After serious thinking trader_4 wrote :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:40:02 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:


See, this is why you're the village idiot. V = IR. Just because I is
zero, that doesn't make R zero. You really should have taken basic
algebra.

Of course not, current and resistance are *inversely proportional* when
voltage is held invariant. The extremes would be zero and infinity.


Irrelevant. Put zero in for I, you get V = 0. Again, please take a course
in algebra.

Ohm's law is a formula. As such I should be able to 'plug in' two
values for two of the variables and obtain the third by using one of
the other two equations.

You are now giving me V=0 and I=0 so now I should be able to determine
what the resistance is. The formula (using algebra) can be manipulated
to R=V/I for this purpose and then that equation solved for R. If I is
zero, it doesn't work.


You can't use the formula when it requires dividing by zero. There is
no need to divide by zero to solve for V when I is zero. Capiche?
You just insist on trying to force division by zero, when it's not
required. Go back to the apples example.



Ohm's Law works for 'voltage drop' because 'voltage drop' *requires*
that there be (non-zero) current through a (non-zero) resistance. This
is the original point which started this discussion.

Ohm's law requires no such thing. Ohn's law is a straight line and it
goes right through the origin. Did you plot it yet? I mean this is
incredibly dumb. Simple electricity 101 test question:

You have a 100 ohm resistor. Per Ohm's law, what is the voltage with:

A - 1 amp flowing
B - 20 amps flowing
C - 0 amps flowing

Everyone else that has weighed in on this knows the correct answers are
100 volts, 2000 volts, 0 volts. You're the only dummy who says we
don't know what the voltage is in case C.

You're lucky to have so many imaginary friends, I only had one and that
was a long time ago.

Again, you are trying to force division by zero, when no division by
zero is needed. V = IR, it's all multiplication.

Except by the *formula* for Ohm's law it can be stated that I and R are
inversely proportional for any given V. So, as 'I' goes toward zero 'R'
goes toward infinity. If 'I' *is* zero then 'R' *is* infinity and you
are attempting to multiply zero by infinity to get a non-non-zero 'V'.


Try taking algebra and electricity 101 and get back to us

This is like saying I have groups of apples in threes. If I select
X groups, how many apples do I then have in total.

T = N x 3 5 groups I have 15 apples total

You just pulled an 'N' and a 'T' out of your hat, and what happened to
'X'? Oh, I see, it shrunk and became a little 'x'. Are you trying to
come up with 3.141592 . . .?

Maybe you need an apple puree formula?


That's why you're the village idiot. Everyone else saw what I meant.


How many apples do I have with N=0? Equation gives 0, a valid number.

Of course, but you might have zero groups of 528 apples or zero groups
of 498745 apples or zero groups any number of apples to get the same
total number of apples. An equation makes no claims of the
relationships between the values.

Your answer, "You can't do that because you could transform that
equation into:

T/N = 3.

And OMG we're dividing by Zero!

I thought 'N' was five.

Maybe you need a nap?


You need to take HS algebra.


The number of apples per group and the number of groups of apples and
the number of total apples in your example are not claiming to be a
formula, so the relationships between them is not important.


T = N x 3 most certainly is a formula. It gives the total number
of apples. Again, you're really lost here.


If on the other hand you claim that the number of apples per group is
inversely proportional to the number of groups of apples for any given
number of total apples then yes, because it is a formula when the
relationships are considered.

Why are you allowing me to troll you like this, are you some kind of
mathochist?

Good to see you admit you're a troll.

You're very rude to people here, so I thought you would like some
competition. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


I'm only rude to assholes like you that can't do basic algebra
and then lecture the rest of us, who can.

I'll test your theory tomorrow. I don't know exactly how far away work
is, but I do know that if I travel at a rate of a mile a minute I can
time myself and derive the distance using D=RT as an equation.

Better yet, to save gas, I will get in my truck in the driveway and
won't even start it. My rate will be zero and you say that the time
doesn't matter and the distance becomes zero.

When my neighbor gets upset about his cornfield suddenly becoming a
parking lot and his house being demolished by a factory landing on it,
I will tell him that some idiot on USENET convinced me to do it as an
experiment.

I'm putting *my* money on the time being infinite when the rate is zero
and my workplace staying right where it is because of D=RT being a
formula. It's a good thing too, because we're not zoned for industry up
here.

I'm sure my boss will forgive me for not working tomorrow when I
explain that the alternative was to have his factory dropped on a
farmhouse and a cornfield in a non-industrial zone.

If you are correct, it should make the evening news, so have someone
read the newspaper to you - or just look at the photos that are likely
to accompany the story. Everybody has a camera these days.

On 07/04/2016 01:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

[snip]

Smoking is not a right.

It's as much a right as the "right" to fire a machine gun in all
directions, while in a movie theater.

On 7/4/2016 11:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:07:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Do you think it is the right of the people to pursue LIFE??


Yes, but you obviously don't. Pursuing life means the ability to be able
to have a cigar dinner in a private room at a private restaurant with out
silly libs like you banning it. I think paragliding and mountain climbing
are risky. Ok, now we need to ban it, because people die from it. See
how that works?


I guess we just see things differently. People risk their own lives
when they para-glide or mountain climb. OTOH, people risk others lives
when they smoke, which is wrong to do.

See how that works?


Have you forgotten:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. €”€”"

What does it mean to pursue LIFE?? It isn't just about pursuing liberty
or happiness.


See, once again you just proved you're no conservative. You're trying to
rewrite history, to try to desperately twist that into somehow giving
you the write to ban what people freely do in a private room, on private
property.

How can I twist a direct quote from the Constitution? It lists 3
rights: "that among these are *Life*"!

Why do people always emphasize liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Without LIFE we can't pursue liberty OR happiness. Should we pursue
LIFE that leads to sickness and disease, or pursue LIFE that leads to a
high standard of health? Gee ... let me think. hmmmm

I think I'll pursue LIFE that leads to a high standard of health.
Without that, pursuing liberty and happiness can be fairly difficult to
attain.


[...]

It just makes you look immature and unable to practice grown up self
control. Seriously, see a counselor.


Seriously, stop claiming you're a conservative.

I am a conservative - it's just a fact. Seriously, you should just
accept it.


[...]

Explain to us how banning a cigar dinner in a private room in
a restaurant fits in with being a conservative. You can't. It doesn't.

It's NOT a political issue - it's a HEALTH issue.


It's very much a political issue.

No - it's a HEALTH issue.


Conservatives believe people should
have the right to have a bar where smoking is allowed and leave people
free to choose.

How do you know what conservatives believe?? Do you speak for all us
conservatives? No.

Why do you think that you do?


Libs want to control it, tax it, because everyone has
to live like they do.

I don't think it's that's simple.


--
Maggie

On 7/4/2016 11:21 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:49:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 2:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??


Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer.
You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're
so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done,
a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know
you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.



I posted 4 links. Which one are you talking about? Care to discuss
what the article actually contained, or do you just enjoy being vague?




I already went through it with you. Once again, you're the village idiot.
Time to change your screen name again, to better troll, perhaps?


I like this article. Read the full article describing all the tech stuff
and results. IOW's, you'll ignore it because it proves you wrong.


"Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of
nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential third hand smoke hazards.

This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Substan-
tial levels of TSNAs were measured on surfaces inside a smokers
vehicle. Laboratory experiments using cellulose as a model indoor
material yielded a10-fold increase of surface-bound TSNAs when
sorbed secondhand smoke was exposed to 60 ppbv HONO for 3 hours. In both
cases we identified
1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal, a TSNA absent in
freshly emitted tobaccosmoke, as the major product. The potent
carcinogens 4-(methy-lnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone and
N-nitroso nornicotine were also detected. Time-course measurements
revealed fast TSNA formation, with up to 0.4% conversion of nicotine.
Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces€”including clothing and human skin€”this recently
identified process represents an unappreciated health hazard through
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed €œthirdhand smoke.€� Our work highlights the
importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly those
involving amines and NO x/HONO cycling, with potential health impacts."


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf





Note what they did. They used a closed car, the worst environment
possible. And they concluded that smoking there leaves traces.
I could have saved them the money, we all know that. What did they
conclude "with potential health impacts". Almost anything today
has potential health impacts, even drinking the water in most
municipal water systems.


WRONG! They showed this result:

"This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)."

AND this:

"Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces€”including clothing and human skin€”this recently
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed €œthirdhand smoke."



--
Maggie

On 7/4/2016 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:01:56 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/4/2016 10:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:51:38 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:46 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:15:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:40:52 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
australia has raised tobacco taxes dramatically. one dollar a pack per year. year one a buck,
year 10 .........10 bucks

i hate the stink, know far too many friends who died from smoking......

I hate the stink from liberals too, how about we tax them like that until
they go away?

geesh ... Liberals just have a different viewpoint.

Liberal smokers STINK just like conservative smokers STINK just like
moderate smokers STINK ....


So, just stay away from us.

Us? So, you smoke?

Only an occasional cigar. I just stand up for the rights of everyone,
including cigarette smokers.

Smoking is not a right.


[...]


Don't you know when you pass by people that that stench turns
peoples stomachs?


Don't you know that if I'm in a private room at a restaurant, where
everyone there agrees it's OK, it doesn't matter, that no one's
stomach is turning?

Your cigar smoke produces secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke deposits
on everything in that room. Anyone who enters that room after your
group smoking can get sick from the residue left behind.

It's no different than someone spraying the room with toxic waste.

You claim to be an engineer and a smart man, but smart people don't
always care about how their actions affect other people.


The problem is that it's the libs who claim to care about everyone,

1. I'm not a lib, and 2. I don't care about everyone.

I don't know anyone who cares about everyone.

so they force their rules down everyone else's throats. Cigarette bans,
soda size limits, soda taxes, salt shaker bans, etc. If they really
cared, they'd leave us free to choose.

If smokers really cared, they'd quit smoking.


Are you offended by what I've said - that you stink and make people sick
to their stomachs as you pass by if you're a smoker? It's just the
truth. Think about it. Do you want to have that sort of affect on people?

You have that effect on me with every post, should we ban you from posting?

Who is forcing you to respond?

But don't use the heavy hand of govt to
screw us, deny us the right to a cigar dinner at a restaurant in a private
room, and then pretend you're a conservative.


Smoking a cigar at at restaurant while having dinner isn't a right.


So what? Just because you don't think it's right doesn't give you the
right to force your view on me.

I have a right to pursue LIFE granted to me under the Constitution, in
addition to the right of free speech, and in pursuing my Constitutional
rights I will protest smoking.

You're welcome to kill yourself with cigarette's, cigar's, or whatever
you choose to use.


And if you were a conservative, like you claim to be, you'd understand that.

Well, I understand how smoking has affected my health - it's not a
political issue and never has been political. Being a conservative
doesn't remove common sense to reason that if something makes people
sick that it's a good idea to restrict or eliminate the source.

Can someone lock Trader in a closed room with a case of cubans and
10 packs of Sweet caps and force him to smoke them all within 3
hours?? Then mabee we'd get some peace from the idiot.

I'll buy the shovel to bury him with.


Not sure if he likes cubans or not. ;-)

--
Maggie

On 7/4/2016 4:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:23:26 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/4/2016 10:46 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:13:34 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:52 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Can you just not comprehend the many times that I've come straight out
and said I'm a conservative?


Can you not comprehend that I said, sure, that's just like all the times
Green comes in here and tells us he's a Republican. But since he's
demonstrated for years that he's not, no one believe him either. In his
case, he's yet to name a single Republican that he likes, he regularly
rants against all of them, even Reagan was no good.




Conservatives believe
that individuals have a right to live their own life and if I want to
have a cigar dinner in
a private room in a private restaurant that is an issue of my freedom
to do what I please, and none of your business. What constitutional
power gives you the right to tell us we can't a cigar dinner? Is that
the country Madison and the founders saw?


Conservatives believe in common sense, and common sense says that if
smoking in all it's forms makes people sick that it's a GOOD idea to
limit exposure to it for people who don't smoke, or don't want to be
exposed to hazardous waste.

Then why are you against allowing me to have a private cigar dinner at
a restaurant in a private room?

Smoking leaves residue and that third hand residue can make people sick.

So far you've given us zero proof of that. Just because you can cite a
study where they found that after someone has been smoking in a car for
hours, the worst possible environment, that byproducts can be found
doesn't prove that anyone has been made sick, nor did the researchers
say that. And that is a very long way from someone catching a whiff
of a cigarette from 25 ft away.

Please read this entire article:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

I'll even post the summary for you.

"Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of
nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential third hand smoke hazards.

This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Substan-
tial levels of TSNAs were measured on surfaces inside a smoker’s
vehicle. Laboratory experiments using cellulose as a model indoor
material yielded a10-fold increase of surface-bound TSNAs when
sorbed secondhand smoke was exposed to 60 ppbv HONO for 3 hours. In both
cases we identified
1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal, a TSNA absent in
freshly emitted tobacco smoke, as the major product. The potent
carcinogens 4-(methy-lnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone and
N-nitroso nornicotine were also detected. Time-course measurements
revealed fast TSNA formation, with up to 0.4% conversion of nicotine.
Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces—including clothing and human skin—this recently
identified process represents an unappreciated health hazard through
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed “thirdhand smoke.” Our work highlights the
importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly those
involving amines and NO x/HONO cycling, with potential health impacts."


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf

It's like trying to defend spraying a room with toxic waste in the name
of freedom and then accusing anyone who objects to it of being
controlling and manipulative.

BS. And no one is forcing you to be in the room with me.

"Toxic waste is any material in liquid, solid, or gas form that can
cause serious harm to humans as well as other animals and the
environment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste

Smoking leaves behind toxic waste.

You wouldn't want to be the next group of people in the room that had
been saturated with toxic waste, and I don't want to be the next person
in the room where people may have been smoking.


Fine. Then have the restaurant free to make that decision. They can
have rooms where smoking is never allowed and rooms where it is allowed.
Disclose it and allow the people to decide. That's the conservative
position. The lib position is to rant on, to force YOUR way onto
everyone, because you know what's good for us.

It doesn't solve the issue of secondhand or thirdhand smoke. Even if a
room is set aside for smoking, people still open the doors, come and go
from those smoking rooms and enter the non-smoking area and expose
non-smokers to those contaminants where not only adults may be exposed,
but also children exposed to those toxic wastes.

This issue is not about politics - it's a health issue.


A good case in point is cruise ships. European cruise ships allow
smoking BUT NOT IN THE STATEROOMS ans NOT ON BALCONIES for safety
reasons

American cruise ships allow smoking only in "designated areas" such as
the casino and the "cigar bar" - but those areas are not sealed from
the rest of the ship and are inadequately ventilated. On our last
cruise there was over half of one deck - and a good section of another
deck that i could NOT safely enter. Including one of the high end
restaurants I wanted to eat in)


That's a big problem with smoking environments.
--
Maggie

On 07/04/2016 11:05 PM, Muggles wrote:
People risk their own lives
when they para-glide or mountain climb.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tempt-off.html


Not seen was 17 irate bikers kicking the paraglider pilot to death...

On 7/4/2016 4:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:05:14 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:55:49 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/3/2016 12:38 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:09:08 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.


As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.


Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals


I can sy for sure a "whiff" can be more than enough to send me for my
inhaler.

Yesterday I found this little tidbit of info:

"1:
When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.
2:
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)"

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867

1. That information explains why I'd get so ill riding in a car when my
parents were smoking. I wouldn't just feel bad or cough - I would get
so sick to my stomach that I couldn't function for an entire day or more
depending on how long I was exposed.
2. I was exposed to second hand and third hand smoke my entire childhood
'til the day I moved out. For years I was hypoglycemic having episodes
of nearly passing out, and I'm now a type 2 diabetic.




ROFL. If you think something that they did in a lab test tube explains
why you got sick in a car from insulin resistance, you really are the
village idiot.


1. Riding in a car while my parents smoked made me sick to my stomach,
sometimes, severely. I was told it was all in my head and there was no
physical reason I should get sick. Now, we know that "THS reacts with
nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or car engines) in the
air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to create
formaldehyde among other chemicals."

Additionally, formaldehyde can make people sick.

2. Secondhand smoke causes molecular changes in cells which lead to
insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to diabetes.)"

I was exposed to high levels of secondhand and thirdhand smoke for
approximately 20 years - I'm now type 2 diabetic. The information
indicates there is a connection between secondhand smoke exposure and 2
illnesses I've dealt with, so yes, I believe those explanations are valid.
--
Maggie

On 7/4/2016 10:15 PM, notX wrote:
On 07/04/2016 01:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

[snip]

Smoking is not a right.

It's as much a right as the "right" to fire a machine gun in all
directions, while in a movie theater.


With similar results.

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 12:17 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 07/04/2016 11:05 PM, Muggles wrote:
People risk their own lives
when they para-glide or mountain climb.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tempt-off.html



Not seen was 17 irate bikers kicking the paraglider pilot to death...


The paraglider was probably already unconscious from the impact.

--
Maggie

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/4/2016 2:50 PM, ChairMan wrote:
Ralph wrote:
On 7/3/2016 3:31 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I'm the radical? Good grief. I support the right of a
group of
people to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are
the
one that
wants to control people, FORCE your ways on everyone.
THAT is what
libs do.


So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100
other
people's right to clean air? You're going to FORCE
everyone else to
breath your stinky cigar smoke?

double whoosh


Some restaurant offered cigar dinners on a regular basis.
Some states
made them illegal.

It is up to the restaurant to clean after. Going in the
next day
you'd never know there was smoking if it was properly
ventilated and
cleaned. Why should you care if it is not bothering you?
No one is
forcing anyone to do anything.

I don't know about where you are, Ed, but hooka bars are
real popular here in Big D. Don't know why or what the
difference is in smoking tobacco in a hooka vs papers, but
they are okay with it shrug

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 00:28:53 -0500, Muggles
wrote:



1. Riding in a car while my parents smoked made me sick to my stomach,
sometimes, severely. I was told it was all in my head and there was no
physical reason I should get sick. Now, we know that "THS reacts with
nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or car engines) in the
air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to create
formaldehyde among other chemicals."

Additionally, formaldehyde can make people sick.

2. Secondhand smoke causes molecular changes in cells which lead to
insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to diabetes.)"

I was exposed to high levels of secondhand and thirdhand smoke for
approximately 20 years - I'm now type 2 diabetic. The information
indicates there is a connection between secondhand smoke exposure and 2
illnesses I've dealt with, so yes, I believe those explanations are valid.

Have you ever read all of the statistics about the dangers of having a
gun in your house?
That extends to your neighbor's house in some of these studies.
Other safety nazi is coming after you.

Per :
How about those stink bombs the "bad kids" set off in the classroom
about grade 5??? The ones made od sulphur match heads in a pen case?

That brings to mind butyric acid in high-school chemistry.

To punish us for being unruly, the teacher would un-cap a bottle of
butyric acid.

Yeah.... perfect analogy... physically harmless to bystanders,
intensely-bad smelling...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/4/2016 2:50 PM, ChairMan wrote:
Ralph wrote:
On 7/3/2016 3:31 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I'm the radical? Good grief. I support the right of a
group of
people to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are the
one that
wants to control people, FORCE your ways on everyone.
THAT is what
libs do.


So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100
other
people's right to clean air? You're going to FORCE
everyone else to
breath your stinky cigar smoke?

double whoosh


Some restaurant offered cigar dinners on a regular basis. Some states
made them illegal.

It is up to the restaurant to clean after. Going in the next day you'd
never know there was smoking if it was properly ventilated and cleaned.
Why should you care if it is not bothering you? No one is forcing
anyone to do anything.

+1

Except the last part. The anti-smoking Nazis are forcing smokers to do
what they want. In most states you can't have that private restaurant
for smokers anymore. Now they are after our guns, same process.

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 11:15:30 PM UTC-4, notX wrote:
On 07/04/2016 01:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

[snip]

Smoking is not a right.

It's as much a right as the "right" to fire a machine gun in all
directions, while in a movie theater.

BS. But thanks for showing that loon libs are on the same track,
guns and cigarettes, same thing.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:05:57 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 11:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:07:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Do you think it is the right of the people to pursue LIFE??


Yes, but you obviously don't. Pursuing life means the ability to be able
to have a cigar dinner in a private room at a private restaurant with out
silly libs like you banning it. I think paragliding and mountain climbing
are risky. Ok, now we need to ban it, because people die from it. See
how that works?


I guess we just see things differently. People risk their own lives
when they para-glide or mountain climb. OTOH, people risk others lives
when they smoke, which is wrong to do.

See how that works?


No, because it's not true. If we were allowed to have a smoking bar,
a smoking restaurant, the only people risking anything are the people
who choose to go there. If you were a conservative, you'd understand
that, but instead, as usual, you spin, lie and deflect. That's what
libs do.





Have you forgotten:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are *Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. €”€”"

What does it mean to pursue LIFE?? It isn't just about pursuing liberty
or happiness.


See, once again you just proved you're no conservative. You're trying to
rewrite history, to try to desperately twist that into somehow giving
you the write to ban what people freely do in a private room, on private
property.

How can I twist a direct quote from the Constitution? It lists 3
rights: "that among these are *Life*"!

Why do people always emphasize liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Without LIFE we can't pursue liberty OR happiness. Should we pursue
LIFE that leads to sickness and disease, or pursue LIFE that leads to a
high standard of health? Gee ... let me think. hmmmm


It's up to each individual to pursue their life according to their wishes.
Having a separate bar or restaurant for smokers doesn't infringe on your
life, your rights. But YOU, with the heavy hand of govt, are infringing
on smokers. You're no conservative.




I think I'll pursue LIFE that leads to a high standard of health.
Without that, pursuing liberty and happiness can be fairly difficult to
attain.


Great. The problem is that you're forcing YOUR pursuit on the rest
of us who have different pursuits. It's what libs do. They know what
we should or shouldn't smoke, eat, drive, etc. And at the same time
the limo libs fly around in Gulfstream IVs. At least they don't pretend
to be conservatives.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:11:18 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 11:21 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:49:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 2:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??


Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer.
You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're
so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done,
a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know
you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.



I posted 4 links. Which one are you talking about? Care to discuss
what the article actually contained, or do you just enjoy being vague?




I already went through it with you. Once again, you're the village idiot.
Time to change your screen name again, to better troll, perhaps?


I like this article. Read the full article describing all the tech stuff
and results. IOW's, you'll ignore it because it proves you wrong.


"Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of
nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential third hand smoke hazards.

This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Substan-
tial levels of TSNAs were measured on surfaces inside a smokers
vehicle. Laboratory experiments using cellulose as a model indoor
material yielded a10-fold increase of surface-bound TSNAs when
sorbed secondhand smoke was exposed to 60 ppbv HONO for 3 hours. In both
cases we identified
1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal, a TSNA absent in
freshly emitted tobaccosmoke, as the major product. The potent
carcinogens 4-(methy-lnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone and
N-nitroso nornicotine were also detected. Time-course measurements
revealed fast TSNA formation, with up to 0.4% conversion of nicotine.
Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces€”including clothing and human skin€”this recently
identified process represents an unappreciated health hazard through
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed €œthirdhand smoke.€� Our work highlights the
importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly those
involving amines and NO x/HONO cycling, with potential health impacts."


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf





Note what they did. They used a closed car, the worst environment
possible. And they concluded that smoking there leaves traces.
I could have saved them the money, we all know that. What did they
conclude "with potential health impacts". Almost anything today
has potential health impacts, even drinking the water in most
municipal water systems.


WRONG! They showed this result:

"This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)."

Wrong? What's wrong? I told you flat out I didn't need to even do
a study to know that you'd get tobacco byproducts in a closed car.
Good grief.



AND this:

"Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces€”including clothing and human skin€”this recently
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed €œthirdhand smoke."



--
Maggie

"These findings raise concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue"

Obviously you don't get around much. I gave you a cite where they list
the top 10 cancer causing substances found in our homes. Shampoo, hot dogs,
etc are on the list. I can find you endless studies that "raise concerns"..
Based on that we should ban hot dogs, shampoo, coffee, and half the things
in our homes. BTW, how the hell does that tobacco residue get to you
when it's in a private restaurant or bar if you don't go in the place?
Answer, it doesn't.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:28:52 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 4:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:05:14 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:55:49 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/3/2016 12:38 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:09:08 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.


As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.


Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals


I can sy for sure a "whiff" can be more than enough to send me for my
inhaler.

Yesterday I found this little tidbit of info:

"1:
When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.
2:
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)"

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867

1. That information explains why I'd get so ill riding in a car when my
parents were smoking. I wouldn't just feel bad or cough - I would get
so sick to my stomach that I couldn't function for an entire day or more
depending on how long I was exposed.
2. I was exposed to second hand and third hand smoke my entire childhood
'til the day I moved out. For years I was hypoglycemic having episodes
of nearly passing out, and I'm now a type 2 diabetic.




ROFL. If you think something that they did in a lab test tube explains
why you got sick in a car from insulin resistance, you really are the
village idiot.


1. Riding in a car while my parents smoked made me sick to my stomach,


Listening to you, they were probably sick to their stomachs too.


sometimes, severely. I was told it was all in my head and there was no
physical reason I should get sick. Now, we know that "THS reacts with
nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or car engines) in the
air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to create
formaldehyde among other chemicals."

Additionally, formaldehyde can make people sick.

2. Secondhand smoke causes molecular changes in cells which lead to
insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to diabetes.)"

I was exposed to high levels of secondhand and thirdhand smoke for
approximately 20 years - I'm now type 2 diabetic. The information
indicates there is a connection between secondhand smoke exposure and 2
illnesses I've dealt with, so yes, I believe those explanations are valid.
--
Maggie

BS. Again, you need some grounding in basic science and logic. That
study you cited shows nothing of the kind. You really are the idiot.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:29:48 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 10:15 PM, notX wrote:
On 07/04/2016 01:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

[snip]

Smoking is not a right.

It's as much a right as the "right" to fire a machine gun in all
directions, while in a movie theater.


With similar results.

--
Maggie

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I said. Loony libs like you like to
regulate everything and think someone smoking a cigarette in a private
bar is the same as a terrorist in a theater with a gun. EXACTLY what
loony libs do. So, they want to regulate everything, smoking, guns,
soda. You won't be happy and the process won't stop until everyone lives
like you say they have to. Sure, you're a conservative ROFL.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:27:37 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 00:28:53 -0500, Muggles
wrote:



1. Riding in a car while my parents smoked made me sick to my stomach,
sometimes, severely. I was told it was all in my head and there was no
physical reason I should get sick. Now, we know that "THS reacts with
nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or car engines) in the
air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to create
formaldehyde among other chemicals."

Additionally, formaldehyde can make people sick.

2. Secondhand smoke causes molecular changes in cells which lead to
insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to diabetes.)"

I was exposed to high levels of secondhand and thirdhand smoke for
approximately 20 years - I'm now type 2 diabetic. The information
indicates there is a connection between secondhand smoke exposure and 2
illnesses I've dealt with, so yes, I believe those explanations are valid.

Have you ever read all of the statistics about the dangers of having a
gun in your house?
That extends to your neighbor's house in some of these studies.
Other safety nazi is coming after you.

+1

Her standards of proof is to find one study about anything that says
something like "this suggests cause possible concerns" and BINGO,
that's all we need, one study like that. Based on that hot dogs,
sugar, shampoo, almost everything should be banned. My God think of
the children eating those hot dogs at a baseball game!

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:15:47 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:05:57 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

I think I'll pursue LIFE that leads to a high standard of health.
Without that, pursuing liberty and happiness can be fairly difficult to
attain.


Great. The problem is that you're forcing YOUR pursuit on the rest
of us who have different pursuits. It's what libs do. They know what
we should or shouldn't smoke, eat, drive, etc. And at the same time
the limo libs fly around in Gulfstream IVs. At least they don't pretend
to be conservatives.

....let's talk about deflection...like using the "you libs" term for not being able to think for yourself and stick to the talking points.

On 7/5/2016 2:27 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 00:28:53 -0500, Muggles
wrote:



1. Riding in a car while my parents smoked made me sick to my stomach,
sometimes, severely. I was told it was all in my head and there was no
physical reason I should get sick. Now, we know that "THS reacts with
nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or car engines) in the
air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to create
formaldehyde among other chemicals."

Additionally, formaldehyde can make people sick.

2. Secondhand smoke causes molecular changes in cells which lead to
insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to diabetes.)"

I was exposed to high levels of secondhand and thirdhand smoke for
approximately 20 years - I'm now type 2 diabetic. The information
indicates there is a connection between secondhand smoke exposure and 2
illnesses I've dealt with, so yes, I believe those explanations are valid.

Have you ever read all of the statistics about the dangers of having a
gun in your house?
That extends to your neighbor's house in some of these studies.
Other safety nazi is coming after you.



Separate issues.

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 9:07 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/4/2016 2:50 PM, ChairMan wrote:
Ralph wrote:
On 7/3/2016 3:31 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I'm the radical? Good grief. I support the right of a
group of
people to have cigar dinner in a restaurant. YOU are the
one that
wants to control people, FORCE your ways on everyone.
THAT is what
libs do.


So the right of one person to stink up a room trumps 100
other
people's right to clean air? You're going to FORCE
everyone else to
breath your stinky cigar smoke?

double whoosh


Some restaurant offered cigar dinners on a regular basis. Some states
made them illegal.

It is up to the restaurant to clean after. Going in the next day you'd
never know there was smoking if it was properly ventilated and cleaned.
Why should you care if it is not bothering you? No one is forcing
anyone to do anything.

+1

Except the last part. The anti-smoking Nazis are forcing smokers to do
what they want. In most states you can't have that private restaurant
for smokers anymore. Now they are after our guns, same process.


Separate issues.

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 9:15 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:05:57 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 11:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 6:07:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Do you think it is the right of the people to pursue LIFE??


Yes, but you obviously don't. Pursuing life means the ability to be able
to have a cigar dinner in a private room at a private restaurant with out
silly libs like you banning it. I think paragliding and mountain climbing
are risky. Ok, now we need to ban it, because people die from it. See
how that works?


I guess we just see things differently. People risk their own lives
when they para-glide or mountain climb. OTOH, people risk others lives
when they smoke, which is wrong to do.

See how that works?


No, because it's not true. If we were allowed to have a smoking bar,
a smoking restaurant, the only people risking anything are the people
who choose to go there. If you were a conservative, you'd understand
that, but instead, as usual, you spin, lie and deflect. That's what
libs do.

The point is restaurant owners don't want to limit their clientele. It's
fiscally stupid to do so. A smoke free environment doesn't prevent
smokers from dining because the environment makes them sick. OTOH, a
smoking environment prevents non-smokers from dining because the
environment is toxic to them.

A non-smoking environment is more profitable AND healthy for all who
might attend.


[...]

How can I twist a direct quote from the Constitution? It lists 3
rights: "that among these are *Life*"!

Why do people always emphasize liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Without LIFE we can't pursue liberty OR happiness. Should we pursue
LIFE that leads to sickness and disease, or pursue LIFE that leads to a
high standard of health? Gee ... let me think. hmmmm


It's up to each individual to pursue their life according to their wishes.
Having a separate bar or restaurant for smokers doesn't infringe on your
life, your rights. But YOU, with the heavy hand of govt, are infringing
on smokers. You're no conservative.

On the contrary - I'm a advocate for healthy air. Everyone should do
likewise because we all breath air. It's a health issue - not a
political issue. I can be a conservative and still promote breathable
air in public venues. Conservatives tend to look at the entire picture
vs. such a narrow viewpoint as you keep preaching.


I think I'll pursue LIFE that leads to a high standard of health.
Without that, pursuing liberty and happiness can be fairly difficult to
attain.


Great. The problem is that you're forcing YOUR pursuit on the rest
of us who have different pursuits.

Contrary to your ideology, the Constitution actually states that we have
a right to "pursue LIFE", and that's what I'm doing.

OTOH, you're promoting the idea that people are free to spread toxic
waste because you feel it's their right to practice such a freedom.

That mindset is simply nuts. You'd rather people spread toxic waste in
the name of freedom vs. promote healthy air in the name of pursuing LIFE.


It's what libs do.

No ... that's what people who want to pursue LIFE do. It's a health
issue - not a political issue.

[...]

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 9:20 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:11:18 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 11:21 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 5:49:10 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 2:13 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:51:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


Serious question, are you an Alzheimer's patient??


Serious question, are you the village idiot? Never mind, we know the answer.
You just posted a link to an abstract about a study that was conducted. You're
so stupid that you think that's "proof". It just says a study was done,
a little about the methodology and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results. And you want to talk about my mental health and brains? If we didn't already know
you're the village idiot, that would go a long way to proving it.



I posted 4 links. Which one are you talking about? Care to discuss
what the article actually contained, or do you just enjoy being vague?




I already went through it with you. Once again, you're the village idiot.
Time to change your screen name again, to better troll, perhaps?


I like this article. Read the full article describing all the tech stuff
and results. IOW's, you'll ignore it because it proves you wrong.


"Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of
nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential third hand smoke hazards.

This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Substan-
tial levels of TSNAs were measured on surfaces inside a smokers
vehicle. Laboratory experiments using cellulose as a model indoor
material yielded a10-fold increase of surface-bound TSNAs when
sorbed secondhand smoke was exposed to 60 ppbv HONO for 3 hours. In both
cases we identified
1-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-4-butanal, a TSNA absent in
freshly emitted tobaccosmoke, as the major product. The potent
carcinogens 4-(methy-lnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridinyl)-1-butanone and
N-nitroso nornicotine were also detected. Time-course measurements
revealed fast TSNA formation, with up to 0.4% conversion of nicotine.
Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces€”including clothing and human skin€”this recently
identified process represents an unappreciated health hazard through
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed €œthirdhand smoke.€� Our work highlights the
importance of reactions at indoor interfaces, particularly those
involving amines and NO x/HONO cycling, with potential health impacts."


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6576.full.pdf





Note what they did. They used a closed car, the worst environment
possible. And they concluded that smoking there leaves traces.
I could have saved them the money, we all know that. What did they
conclude "with potential health impacts". Almost anything today
has potential health impacts, even drinking the water in most
municipal water systems.


WRONG! They showed this result:

"This study shows that residual nicotine from tobacco smoke sorbed
to indoor surfaces reacts with ambient nitrous acid (HONO) to
form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)."


Wrong? What's wrong? I told you flat out I didn't need to even do
a study to know that you'd get tobacco byproducts in a closed car.
Good grief.

It said: "Formation of carcinogens indoors".

IOW, the study isn't simply about byproducts in a closed car. The
results apply to "indoors", not just in a closed car.


AND this:

"Given the rapid sorption and persistence of high levels of nicotine on
indoor surfaces€”including clothing and human skin€”this recently
dermal exposure, dust inhalation, and ingestion. These findings raise
concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue that has
been recently dubbed €œthirdhand smoke."



"These findings raise concerns about exposures to the tobacco smoke residue"


Obviously you don't get around much. I gave you a cite where they list
the top 10 cancer causing substances found in our homes. Shampoo, hot dogs,
etc are on the list. I can find you endless studies that "raise concerns".
Based on that we should ban hot dogs, shampoo, coffee, and half the things
in our homes. BTW, how the hell does that tobacco residue get to you
when it's in a private restaurant or bar if you don't go in the place?
Answer, it doesn't.


The carcinogens deposited on any surface during that private room
restaurant smoking event leach out and combine with VOC's in the room
and air to create MORE dangerous toxins.

For an engineer, you really have a difficult time putting details
together to form a logical thought.

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 9:24 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:28:52 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 4:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:05:14 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 5:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:55:49 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 7/3/2016 12:38 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 1:09:08 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/3/2016 8:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/2/2016 11:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 7/2/2016 12:20 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 12:04:00 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 7/2/2016 11:48 AM, wrote:
Take a look at this weeks "Inside Man" on CNN.
He will tell you about all of the dangerous chemicals you have around
you every day. Most are in far higher concentrations than you find in
a whiff of smoke.


That may be, but it does not make smoke any less a danger. Factors
include concentration and length of exposure. Sitting in a tight space
with two chain smokers is more than a whiff.


As far as I know there is basically nowhere where you have to sit in a
tight space with two chain smokers. Unless you want to.
There are people who complain when they *see* a whiff of smoke
downwind 50 feet away.
People who complain about the *smell* of smoke on clothing.
That's what I assume he's talking about.


When we were kids it was common to have a car or living room filled with
smoke. Not so much today. Smell of smoke is not second hand smoke. I
may not like it but I don't see it as a health hazard.


Third hand smoke:

"Chemicals that are left over after smoking land on any surface in an
area where smoking has taken place. Studies have found that of chemicals


I can sy for sure a "whiff" can be more than enough to send me for my
inhaler.

Yesterday I found this little tidbit of info:

"1:
When THS reacts with nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or
car engines) in the air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to
create formaldehyde among other chemicals.
2:
- Studies in mice have found that THS causes molecular changes in cells
which lead to insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to
diabetes.)"

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-thi...-smoke-2248867

1. That information explains why I'd get so ill riding in a car when my
parents were smoking. I wouldn't just feel bad or cough - I would get
so sick to my stomach that I couldn't function for an entire day or more
depending on how long I was exposed.
2. I was exposed to second hand and third hand smoke my entire childhood
'til the day I moved out. For years I was hypoglycemic having episodes
of nearly passing out, and I'm now a type 2 diabetic.




ROFL. If you think something that they did in a lab test tube explains
why you got sick in a car from insulin resistance, you really are the
village idiot.


1. Riding in a car while my parents smoked made me sick to my stomach,


Listening to you, they were probably sick to their stomachs too.

Why would they be sick? They smoked the majority of their lives. OTOH,
I never smoked, and my body rejected anything to do with smoking, which
included secondhand & thirdhand smoke, and any VOC combination with
smoking.


sometimes, severely. I was told it was all in my head and there was no
physical reason I should get sick. Now, we know that "THS reacts with
nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or car engines) in the
air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to create
formaldehyde among other chemicals."

Additionally, formaldehyde can make people sick.

2. Secondhand smoke causes molecular changes in cells which lead to
insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to diabetes.)"

I was exposed to high levels of secondhand and thirdhand smoke for
approximately 20 years - I'm now type 2 diabetic. The information
indicates there is a connection between secondhand smoke exposure and 2
illnesses I've dealt with, so yes, I believe those explanations are valid.


BS. Again, you need some grounding in basic science and logic. That
study you cited shows nothing of the kind. You really are the idiot.


You asked for valid data of studies on the subject. I provided valid
data.

Smoking has altered your DNA, including, your ability to see the forest
for the trees.

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 9:27 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:29:48 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 7/4/2016 10:15 PM, notX wrote:
On 07/04/2016 01:01 PM, Muggles wrote:

[snip]

Smoking is not a right.

It's as much a right as the "right" to fire a machine gun in all
directions, while in a movie theater.


With similar results.



Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I said. Loony libs like you like to

I guess I just need to keep reminding you that I'm a conservative. Your
short term memory is non-existent.

[...]

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 9:29 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:27:37 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 00:28:53 -0500, Muggles
wrote:



1. Riding in a car while my parents smoked made me sick to my stomach,
sometimes, severely. I was told it was all in my head and there was no
physical reason I should get sick. Now, we know that "THS reacts with
nitrous oxide (for example from gas appliances or car engines) in the
air creating carcinogens known as nitrosamines. When volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in THS react with ozone in the air to create
formaldehyde among other chemicals."

Additionally, formaldehyde can make people sick.

2. Secondhand smoke causes molecular changes in cells which lead to
insulin resistance (simplistically, the precursor to diabetes.)"

I was exposed to high levels of secondhand and thirdhand smoke for
approximately 20 years - I'm now type 2 diabetic. The information
indicates there is a connection between secondhand smoke exposure and 2
illnesses I've dealt with, so yes, I believe those explanations are valid.

Have you ever read all of the statistics about the dangers of having a
gun in your house?
That extends to your neighbor's house in some of these studies.
Other safety nazi is coming after you.


+1

-100 You can't compare a health issue related to toxic waste with a
self-defense issue related to gun ownership.

[...]

--
Maggie

On 7/5/2016 9:33 AM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:15:47 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 1:05:57 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

I think I'll pursue LIFE that leads to a high standard of health.
Without that, pursuing liberty and happiness can be fairly difficult to
attain.


Great. The problem is that you're forcing YOUR pursuit on the rest
of us who have different pursuits. It's what libs do. They know what
we should or shouldn't smoke, eat, drive, etc. And at the same time
the limo libs fly around in Gulfstream IVs. At least they don't pretend
to be conservatives.

...let's talk about deflection...like using the "you libs" term for not being able to think for yourself and stick to the talking points.


He's lost the argument, already.

--
Maggie